“Flawed economic arguments against tackling climate change are being used to slow the move to low-carbon growth, a leading economist has warned.” – that’s Nicholas Stern, or Lord, to his admirers. His “economic case” for “climate action” was crap then and it is now.
Even warmers like Richard Tol pointed out what a rubbish “analysis” it was at the time.
Lord Stern, whose key 2006 report set out the economic case for cutting greenhouse gases, said science suggested the world was heading for temperature rises of 3C or 4C on the basis of current efforts to stop global warming.
Such rises would cause a “catastrophic rewrite of the relationship between humans and the planet within the lifetimes of those being born today”, he will say in the last in a series of lectures on climate change.
Opponents of strong moves to tackle climate change put forward economic arguments against action, including its cost, the fear companies may move to less strictly regulated countries and that the UK should not take measures when others are doing “nothing”.
But Lord Stern, chairman of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change at the London School of Economics and Political Science, said moving to a low-carbon economy will create “investment, opportunity and growth”.
It will involve substantial investment and strong policies, he admits, but said countries which get left behind will suffer from weak technology and having their “dirty” goods shut out of global markets.
He believes the arguments against tackling climate change on a national level in the UK are “confused” and fail to understand that global warming is a market failure, with the true cost of goods and services which create emissions not reflected in their price.Policies which tackle emissions are addressing that failure and are pro-market, he will tell the audience at the Lionel Robbins Memorial Lectures.
And he will say: “Some also suggest that we cannot afford to take action to ‘save the planet’. But low-carbon growth will be full of discovery and the costs of many green technologies are falling fast.
“Past industrial revolutions involved transformations that drove two or more decades of strong innovation and growth, with investment flowing to the pioneers.”
Or, because their costs are escalated, the other countries win out. Those countries that have imposed all those extra costs are now going backwards. Unemployment up, tax revenues down. …
“countries which get left behind will suffer from weak technology and having their “dirty” goods shut out of global markets.”
Right. Like China. How’s that prediction working for you, Mr Stern, compared to the economic morass that Europe is in?
You’re correct, Nickleaton: Lawd Stern is a Globalist,–a Commu-Fascist out of the “Red”, London School of Economics(Communistic). He’s also a LIAR, imo, because: his assertions of “investment”, deals with a govt. entity BUYING–Not “investing” for a return;–his assertions of “opportunity”–merely timeliness, imo, and his assertion of “growth” is in reality, a retraction along the lines of “featherbedding”, which is inefficient-use of labor. Nobama will often similarly mix meanings in USA parlance, because he can SAY one thing, and MEAN another,–a fraudulent dodge often used by Globalist, Commu-fascists. Because Green economies are inefficient, un-employment in those economies will always be UP, and with few purchases, tax-revenues down, their economies reversing/failing.
Already over half a million families are freezing in the dark in Germany alone, simply because they cannot afford ’boutique’ electric power bills. As more and more resources are diverted from life-saving and necessary uses to the misguided effort to prevent a small fraction of a degree of warming, more people will suffer and die.